• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Korean Birth Rate

Doc

Member
Real Person
Came across an interesting article. Korea is SERIOUSLY concerned about its low birth rate.....

http://www.eastwestcenter.org/news-...eclining-birth-rates-raising-concerns-in-asia

HONOLULU (April 10) – There has been both good and bad news coming out of Asia on the population front. The good news is many Asians are living longer. The bad news is not only are many living longer but there are fewer “new Asians” coming on to the scene. And, that demographic transition is rife with important implications for economic growth and living standards in many Asian countries, especially in Northeast and East Asia.

Andrew Mason, senior fellow at the East-West Center (EWC) in Honolulu and a professor of economics at the University of Hawaii, points out that “Japan is now the oldest population in the world, but others are catching up.” The reasons others are snapping at Japan’s heels for the dubious title are not only improved living and health conditions but rapidly declining birth rates. Mason notes that Singapore “has reached 1.2 births per woman … (and) South Korea has the lowest fertility rate in the world – slightly less than 1.1 births per woman.” Mason adds that China may not be far behind, already boasting an anemic birth rate of 1.6, and “it will soon begin to experience rapid aging … just how rapid is unknown and will depend in part on how quickly China moves to relax the one-child policy.”

Policy decisions undoubtedly play a major role in the directions birth rates take in many countries. But other just as important factors rear their heads as the desire to have and rear children declines.

Minja Kim Choe, EWC senior fellow and family and gender expert, says to understand the issue, especially in Korea, a closer look must be taken at “attitudes on marriage, childbearing, and gender roles,” with economics playing a large role, too. In a recent study, she notes that the traditional Korean family system, based on Confucian ideology and formalized by the Yi dynasty in the mid-17th century, has undergone major changes with the industrialization and modernization of the country over the past few decades. “It is not surprising then,” Choe says, “that women in modern Korea, who have (a) high level of education and therefore have the potential for economic independence, have developed non-traditional views on marriage,” and childbearing.

But it is not just Korean women.

Choe says that studies found that an “increasing proportion of men and women view marriage as not necessary for (a) full and satisfying life.” In fact, of Koreans of “prime marriage age, between 20 and 34, surveyed in 2003 one third of the women and one in six men had, what Choe calls, a “neutral attitude” on marriage, meaning they believed marriage did not matter one way or the other. Perhaps not the Confucian attitude their ancestors would have liked, but one that clearly shows the realization that “marriage demands more changes and added responsibilities,” especially for women.

But, those changing attitudes are causing problems for the majority of Koreans who still want to marry. The window of marriage opportunity is not a large one. Choe says, “the appropriate age for marriage (is) for women beginning in their late 20s by their own choice, and ending before age 30 by the choice of (their) potential husbands.”

Attitudes toward childbearing also bear out the changing environment in Korea.

Choe notes that, according to survey data, “preferred family size expressed as (an) ideal number of children or intended number of children has changed little since 1980,” decreasing only slightly from 2.1 to 1.9. But, she points out, “the view that ‘it is necessary to have children’ has declined substantially.” A trend, Choe believes, “suggests that (an) increasing proportion of women will be evaluating costs and benefits of having children vis-à-vis other options in life such as having more time for employment and other non-familial activities.”

And perhaps, according to Choe, that is because “young men and women in their early thirties … grew up during the period when South Korea experienced its most rapid economic growth. It is likely they have formed a taste for a high level of consumption and high expectations of social and economic advances in their adult life.” Now experiencing slower economic growth and higher unemployment rates, many of those same young people as they become of marriage age may be taking pause. She notes, “The new and prospective parents are likely to have benefited from a high level of education,” and an improved standard of living, “and want to provide their children” similar advantages. Something they may not be able to do.

The Korean government is aware of the growing birth rate decline problem and has advanced numerous policies in the past few years to attempt a solution, including improved maternity leave, childcare subsidies, and baby bonuses. But, Choe says, “These measures may have some effect” on couples merely postponing childbearing, but they “are likely to be short lived at best.” She adds, for a sustained reversal in the falling birth rate, “More long-range policies on improving economic conditions of the young adults, reducing the cost of children’s education, and supporting egalitarian gender roles need to be established and implemented.”

The problems Choe outlines in Korea are familiar to another population expert, Robert Retherford, who has done extensive studies on similar phenomena in Japan in collaboration with colleagues from Nihon University’s Population Research Institute in Tokyo. The EWC senior fellow and coordinator of the EWC’s program on Population and Health, says the problems are serious with potentially alarming consequences. “How Japan responds to these challenges could have a profound influence on health care, elderly care and economic growth in the decades ahead,” he notes.

Retherford points out since the early 1990s Japanese policymakers have been trying to coax Japanese into marrying earlier and raising bigger families. They have met with little or no success. He notes that “the present pattern of age-specific birth rates, if unchanged in the future, will eventually cause Japan’s population to decline at a constant rate of 38 percent every 30 years.”

Japan’s largely unsuccessful attempts at breathing life into its “baby bust” have been ongoing since 1990 and “have relied on providing subsidies for childbearing and encouraging employers to creating policies conducive to raising families,” including such steps as childcare leave, expansion of daycare centers, and after-school programs. The problem is that these pronatalist programs are very costly. And, as he points out, “The danger in placing much of the burden on employers … is that employers may avoid hiring women.” The added costs could also lead the firms to “become less efficient and less competitive in the global economy.”

The dilemma for Tokyo is not only how to fill the maternity wards again, but to figure out how to restructure the economy to make it more efficient and competitive, while at the same time, as Retherford points out, “restructuring society to be more marriage and child friendly without jeopardizing women’s hard-won gains in education and employment.” He admits “it won’t be easy and it won’t be cheap.”

And, it will be a dilemma facing more and more developing countries. Retherford notes, and developments in Asia bear him out, “It’s not just Japan. A lot more countries are in the same boat.”
 
DocInKorea said:
The dilemma for Tokyo is not only how to fill the maternity wards again, but to figure out how to restructure the economy to make it more efficient and competitive, while at the same time, as Retherford points out, “restructuring society to be more marriage and child friendly without jeopardizing women’s hard-won gains in education and employment.” He admits “it won’t be easy and it won’t be cheap.”
It's not a popular line of thought, but maybe one of the key problems here IS "women's hard-won gains in education and employment". Back in the day a woman's key role and objective in life was to become a wife & mother, and stay at home - raising children. But then feminists decided this was "oppressive" and women should be educated and get jobs. Which is a great idea IF that is what they want. But in reality all are forced to stay in school by law until a certain age, then encouraged to go on to higher education, which they do (partly hoping to meet a husband there...). Then they have invested so much time and money in education that it would seem foolish to "waste" it, so they start a career, reducing the number of children they have time to raise.

On a societal level, since now there are nearly twice as many people looking for jobs as there were when mainly men were, high supply pushes down average incomes. So even if she marries her husband's income is not enough to support the family, so she is forced to work even if she wants to be a housewife, again reducing time available for childbearing.

Trying to fix the problem while maintaining these "hard-won gains" might be completely artificial and impossible. Maybe what is needed is actually the removal of some of these expectations. Take away mandatory high-school education, make it optional again. Teach women homemaking skills by default, unless they choose to study employment skills. Bring back different expectations for men. Remove state-subsidised contraceptives and abortion...

The government will actually be causing a lot more of the problem than most politicians would ever realise, or care to admit. You can't paper over the problem with subsidies, you've actually got to tackle the cause - which is feminism.
 
FollowingHim said:
. But then feminists decided this was "oppressive" and women should be educated and get jobs. Which is a great idea IF that is what they want. But in reality all are forced to stay in school by law until a certain age, then encouraged to go on to higher education, which they do (partly hoping to meet a husband there...). Then they have invested so much time and money in education that it would seem foolish to "waste" it, so they start a career, reducing the number of children they have time to raise. ...... you've actually got to tackle the cause - which is feminism.

It is pretty sad when a man has the brains to put together a convincing argument and is yet too lazy to actually examine his thinking critically and falls into well worn and easy scapegoats.

Feminism is not the cause of low birthrates or women's success in employment, it is because the world has changed, women have almost always had to remain in schooling as long as men and female universities were around LONG before, women were expected to enter the job force. It was just believed, rightly so, that an educated woman would make a better companion for an educated man and would also be invested in educating her children.

Some women wanted careers, some women were denied career advancement or educational opportunities just because they were women. THAT is what feminism fought against. And if some feminist belittled women who chose to stay at home, it certainly was not the main thrust of the movement. What has changed is the modern working conditions, there are even less traditionally male jobs and more office jobs, more female orientated jobs in the communication and hospitality sector and less pay in traditional male jobs. The costs of living has risen to such an extent that a lot of families need more than one salary, this is not the fault of feminists, this is a societal change and frankly it is just lazy and petty whining to blame feminism. There are many women who do not consider themselves feminists who either love working or feel they need to do so to support their families. Mega-economics mean that very few people are lucky enough in 1st world economies to free themselves from the burden of working.

Lazy, lazy, lazy writing Followinghim, I am disappointed in you.

B
 
On a societal level, since now there are nearly twice as many people looking for jobs as there were when mainly men were, high supply pushes down average incomes. So even if she marries her husband's income is not enough to support the family, so she is forced to work even if she wants to be a housewife, again reducing time available for childbearing

You can't flood a market with anything without devaluing it. The transition from a woman may work (good) to a woman should work (feminism) to a woman must work (post-feminism) is a natural consequence.

People are willing to work more marginal jobs so more marginal jobs are created.

Good post Followinghim.

Izzy,

Pre-feminism most office jobs where traditionally male. It's one of the big places women where denied advancement. It's pretty lazy to cite 'societal change' as an airy general concept when we're talking about specific societal changes with specific consequences.
 
If you keep calling me a name I do not respond to, I will put you on ignore. I don't need to read you and have no problem with not having to.

OK?

I will bother answering you if/when you amend your post to address me by my name. You are not familiar enough with me to refer to me in any way you choose.

Bels
 
Bels, I am fully supportive of women having the ability to work if they want to, just like Tlaloc said. Just as I am fully supportive of them having the ability to stay home, or do a mixture of the two. One problem is that society as a whole now expects women to work. My wife is often asked "what do you do?", by which people mean what job do you do outside the home. Back when we didn't have children they were shocked to be told she was "only" a housewife, and even now that we have children they find it surprising. There is an expectation that every woman will work now, just as there once was an expectation they would not. We truly have moved past the original intent of feminism (to give women choices) and reached the opposite extreme (locking them into having to work). I find it very sad how many women feel forced to put a child in daycare and work for financial reasons, when they just want to be a Mum - although I accept that some also want this lifestyle.

The problem is that every change does have societal and economic consequences, you can't pull on one string in a complex economy and not expect other things to change.

Supply and demand establishes pricing. Very simple. More people looking for jobs = lower wages. It's a basic, fundamental principle of economics. Not lazy thinking.

If you think it's all about having more office jobs, you are forgetting the legions of paper-pushers who used to be employed before the advent of computers to make every single transaction manually at banks, warehouses, department stores, ports etc. The 19th and early 20th centuries were filled with office workers - almost all male. Office work does not encourage female employment, rather females seeking employment are more likely to move into office jobs than construction (although there are some pretty tough women out there!).

Has the cost of living really increased? Improved agricultural efficiency has reduced the prices of basic staple foods etc. The costs that have risen are in many cases non-essentials that have become entrenched in our way of life (electricity, washing machines, entertainment), and taxes (also a non-essential that has become entrenched in our way of life :D ). You can still have a one-income household, although it is more difficult now on an average wage and you need to accept a different standard of living.
 
FollowingHim said:
Bels, I am fully supportive of women having the ability to work if they want to, just like Tlaloc said. Just as I am fully supportive of them having the ability to stay home, or do a mixture of the two. One problem is that society as a whole now expects women to work. My wife is often asked "what do you do?", by which people mean what job do you do outside the home.

Yes, I can believe it, but I wouldn't consider surprise, the same way as disapproval. In all honesty I would be very surprised to find a childless young woman not working either, but just because it is unusual, not because I think a woman should work if she does not want to.

If feminism has given us the choice, it should also give us a choice to stay at home if we wish to. My argument was that consumerist society has removed that choice from us, not feminism.

I am a feminist who would rather stay at home because I feel that is the best choice for me.

. More people looking for jobs = lower wages. It's a basic, fundamental principle of economics. Not lazy thinking.

But it is still the case now that women get paid less, so companies would continue to hire women because they are cheaper. Companies force economic realities and governments will continue to press for women to return to work to encourage consumer spending to boost the economy.
As I said, it is lazy to blame feminism, the situation is far more complicated and to be honest, it just doesn't help.

If you think it's all about having more office jobs, you are forgetting the legions of paper-pushers who used to be employed before the advent of computers to make every single transaction manually at banks, warehouses, department stores, ports etc
.

We still have them, it is just called data entry now.

The 19th and early 20th centuries were filled with office workers - almost all male. Office work does not encourage female employment, rather females seeking employment are more likely to move into office jobs than construction (although there are some pretty tough women out there!).

Ask any person who has managed administration who is better at the job and I would bet you 99% would say women. I know men used to be secretaries and all such but the reason women started over taking men in those roles is because women are better at multi-tasking and verbal/written communication, both vital tasks in administration.

Has the cost of living really increased? Improved agricultural efficiency has reduced the prices of basic staple foods etc. The costs that have risen are in many cases non-essentials that have become entrenched in our way of life (electricity, washing machines, entertainment), and taxes (also a non-essential that has become entrenched in our way of life :D ). You can still have a one-income household, although it is more difficult now on an average wage and you need to accept a different standard of living.

I agree, I do not feel two salaries are necessarily important and yet, some people do expect a certain standard of living. I actually know a woman who is married, both she and her husband work, she would rather send her child away than stop working, not because she can't afford to but just because she rather keep a higher standard of living rather than lose all her luxuries. It is a choice people make and to be honest, you cannot really be surprised can you?
It is considered a imperative to keep a set standard of living according to social norms. For some people they need to be able to pay for their children's education, for some other's they need to not send their children to school in cheap clothes. I just think for some of us, the choice to stay home is still a luxury only a privileged few can afford, not because they can't afford to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads, but because they will feel social pressure, even from their own children, to give their kids a more advantageous standard of living because they are probably facing social sanctions also.

I just feel it is a weak (and convenient) argument to blame the feminists, without examining the social, economic and political pressures on us all to consume.

Bels
 
Oh my - what a sensitive subject. It touches on so many of my hot buttons!

I do not want to disclose too much of my personal situation, but when men fail to live up to their responsibilities, it is good to be able to provide.

I thank God daily that He knew the storm headed our way and provided a path for my family.
 
Bels, we both believe in personal choice for women and work*. We could argue over the details for ever, but I think we'll just move further away from the topic, which is birth rates.

Back to that note, my point is that the fact that far more women are working outside the home now than in the past is a key factor. I hope we can agree that a woman pursuing a career has less time to breed and is therefore likely (on average) to have fewer children than a housewife?

The problem for Korea, Japan and other countries is the issues low birth rates are causing for tax, healthcare, pensions etc. Is there a way of solving this problem while maintaining the current level of female participation in the workforce? Or do you agree with me that it may be necessary for fewer women to work (each making a free choice to do this of course), in order to increase birth rates?

(* Although I believe in personal choice, I also believe that a woman may make the personal choice to follow Christianity, accept patriachal leadership, and hand over the responsibility to make these personal choices to her husband. I am well aware you are quite happy being a headless chick, so this doesn't apply to you :D ).
 
FollowingHim said:
Back to that note, my point is that the fact that far more women are working outside the home now than in the past is a key factor. I hope we can agree that a woman pursuing a career has less time to breed and is therefore likely (on average) to have fewer children than a housewife?

Well, not necessarily because you are assuming that family size is restricted purely due to work restrictions rather than personal choice and economic situations, in fact a housewife relying on one salary may feel she can afford less children than a career woman with a nanny and/or flexible work practices.
At the end of the day, telling women to stay at home is not likely to increase the birth rate, but good work benefits, maternity leave and generous maternity benefits would.


(* Although I believe in personal choice, I also believe that a woman may make the personal choice to follow Christianity, accept patriachal leadership, and hand over the responsibility to make these personal choices to her husband. I am well aware you are quite happy being a headless chick, so this doesn't apply to you :D ).

Actually I don't mind handing over some responsibilities to a man, as long as he is intelligent and responsible enough to make those decisions and not just because 'he is a man'. I am sorry but I know few enough men, personally or by repute who I would trust with a goldfish, let alone my person. I think the problem with Patriarchy is the (poor) assumption that man is capable, when in my experience very few are.

So I believe in working to a persons strengths, if I ever find a man mentally stronger and more capable (rather than a man who confuses being stubborn with strength!) I would be glad to hand over those keys, but you see, that is also personal choice to and I do not believe that every husband has that right. Many women have been ruined by that ideology and I will have none of that.

Bels
 
Heard an interesting story Thu night that potentially has some bearing on this birth-rate topic.

The speaker noted as a young man on a farm that they supplemented the feed of the animals with vitamins and minerals, but did not supplement the feed of the humans although they ate from a garden in the same field. He wondered why? Eventually studied and concluded that the reason was to avoid the need for health insurance for the animals.

He claims that the agriculture industry has eliminated in livestock quite a number of diseases that remain in humans simply by supplementing. In the case of Dogs, they used to have life spans of about 8 years. Now, it isn't unusual for them to live to be 25!

All of which is preamble to ...

He was working at a zoo. Big problem developed - the arctic foxes birth rate was dropping, and a huge proportion of those born had birth defects. Those in charge claimed that the gene pool had gotten messed up, and put him in charge while they went off on some sorta 3 yr project to capture new stocks of arctic foxes.

He discovered that they were pretty much feeding the foxes horse meat, on some theory that it was the best food for them. He immediately changed over and began feeding them conventional dog food -- the end result of all the billions that have been spent on discovering what nutrition eliminates "diseases".

Within a very short time, the zoo's existing stock of arctic foxes were back on track, having large, healthy, birth-defect free litters. When the powers that be returned, there was clearly no need for their new stock.

Moral of the story? Solution for low birth rates among humans? Feed 'em dog food! :eek: :roll: :roll:

I'm about desperate enough for healing in some areas to try it! :lol: :lol: But before Bels freaks, I do promise to continue washing every day. *arf*

Anyway, while I do concur with many of the thoughts above as to the socio-economic causes, it also seems likely that with the continued mineral depletion in the food supply, continued dropping in male sperm counts and Testosterone levels, and all that sorta stuff, there may well be a simple health issue involved. I'll just bet that it can be shown that many of these countries have experienced this decline as they have turned away from their traditional lifestyles and food sources / production methods.

As I understand it, plants need basically 3 minerals to thrive, though there are a few others that may cause problems if sufficiently deficient. Humans, au contraire, need some 60! And they are pretty well depleted in the commercial food supply.
 
*sigh*

Do not get me started on the food industry....when some foods have an ingredients list similar to what one might see on a medicine bottle...that is without the various 'cides that go into the food beforehand.
Goodness knows what it is doing to our system.
Sugar is a drug, yes sure, I really like it, but it is a drug and it is put in everything . I seriously think the effects of sugar and other additives have had a detrimental effect on humanity, especially men because you know the male body was not made to store the amounts of fats women's are. Women are supposed to have a minimum fat level or else we cannot conceive and bear healthy children. Goodness knows what modern diets are doing to men and their mental and physical health.

B - Cide means dead or kill....ermmm, I don't want to eat that.
 
Isabella said:
If you keep calling me a name I do not respond to, I will put you on ignore. I don't need to read you and have no problem with not having to.

OK?

I will bother answering you if/when you amend your post to address me by my name. You are not familiar enough with me to refer to me in any way you choose.

Bels

Says she as she responds to that name :)

I'm thinking you did this post before going back to the other thread?


Sadly, I'm familiar enough with you to irritate you in one word :roll: But if you want to put me on ignore thats cool. I've considered the same for you, but then you do actually contribute something to a conversation once in a while, like in this topic,so I wind up not doing it.
 
There could be something in that Cecil. I'd be inclined to note however that the biggest issue with things people are consuming affecting fertility would be the hormonal contraceptives women tend to use in all sorts of different forms these days. These have an obvious deliberate effect on fertility in the short term, but also can cause long-term damage to the reproductive system (along with abortion, which can do the same). Those artificial hormones then end up in the sewers, then the environment, then sometimes back into drinking water. On the way they damage the environment (resulting in hemaphrodite fish for instance), and could be influencing how girls tend to be hitting puberty earlier these days, as well as potentially depressing both male and female fertility across the whole population. The last two points are speculation, but quite plausible.

It's not uncommon for a woman to be on hormonal contraceptives for 10 years, then decide to have children and find that she really struggles to get pregnant. Not only is she now well past her peak fertility anyway (age 16 to 26 I believe), but the hormonal contraceptives can prematurely age the reproductive system making this so much worse. So then she is forced to look at adoption (nearly impossible in some countries) or IVF (which has moral implications as embryos are often produced and discarded, is expensive and complicated, and mightn't work anyway).

In socialist countries like ours, the state will have promoted and subsidised her contraception for years, and paid for any abortions she had, then subsidise the cost of IVF too, getting hit with a massive bill by the end of it while potentially ending up with fewer future taxpayers than if the government had just kept out of it entirely...

I find it really weird talking to hippies who on the one hand think you should not eat anything that was ever sprayed with a chemical in case it damages them somehow (usually based on worry rather than evidence), but at the same time religiously pop pills full of damaging chemicals every day to deliberately stuff up their reproductive organs AND harm fish. While brandishing Greenpeace cards to say they care about the whales. But they never seem to get the irony when you point it out.
 
The problem with the low birth rate in Korea has more to do with choice than the food supply. Women are wanting a career, because the financial demands in SK are so high. When they do start a family, to have more than two is VERY unusual, because the cost of a decent education is so high.

The problem in Korea is a cultural choice, that I honestly do not think they have the ability to do what is necessary to correct it.

Doc
 
Back
Top